Tag Archives: michael

Holier than thou Leftists, and I include liberals and Democrats in this general category, assure themselves and anyone that will listen that only they are blessed with a social conscious and care about the well being of “the people” while the other side (conservatives, Republicans, or, more generally, the Right), only care about “its” politically and economically elite base. Do not be fooled! For most, though certainly not all, Leftists, the goal is political ascension and its accompanying benefits (wealth and power), and anything they do and say is just a means to this end. This includes making their fellow man into nothing more than their personal stepping stone. Any sympathy and empathy most Leftists may claim to have for their fellow man is false, and any tears they may shed for him being those of crocodiles. This is a certainty crystallized in cataclysmic times, which the most astute on the Left are ever ready to exploit for their own agenda.

In fact, it seems many of these individuals have a sadistic, ruthless, anthropophagus hunger for catastrophes that present them a smorgasbord of human victims to satisfy their Machiavellian political hunger. One example is Democratic strategist Mark Penn who told Chris Matthews in November 2010 that President Obama needs an Oklahoma City bombing-style event to allow him to reconnect with voters and fight Republican political resurgence. Like cannibals steeping in and gorging on the blood and flesh of their prey, many Leftists dine upon the casualties of calamity to nourish their lust for political prominence. Hence, the apparently automatic reaction to Jared Lee Loughner’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona by many Leftists who, like Penn, see in tragedy the perfect platform from which to provoke opposition against their hated Right-wing, especially conservative, foes, paving the way for electoral victory. In a desperate attempt to rid themselves of the bitterness of their intellectual and political poverty and failure and feed their void for political relevance and power, these Leftists thus immediately began feasting on the barely fallen victims of Loughner’s fury, exploiting and politicizing their deaths by pinning the blame for it on the Right.

More specifically, Leftists have blamed the latter’srhetoric and imagery, particularly that of prominent conservative talk show hosts, the Tea Party and specific conservatives, like Sarah Palin, defining it as divisive, hateful, extremist and inciting, and thus leading to real, violence against Leftists, especially Democrats, and therefore those who produce it are responsible for any violence against those whom it is directed. This is not only desperate palaver from perfunctory people but also question begging. On one hand, the benchmark by which this communication is defined as such is not set by any objective, universally realized consensus but rather by the Leftists making these allegations, subject to their political motivations, and therefore is not something on which we can base objective truth. These Leftists then, with few exceptions, only hold accountable and chastise their ideological and political opponents for employing this speech and imagery while their use by fellow Leftist comrades receives no such reprimand and may even be at least tacitly or silently endorsed by them. If these Leftists truly care to end such tragedies then they would universally and unequivocally rebuke the use of rhetoric and imagery they believe encourages and/or leads to them; that they do not do this proves their response to such events is a matter of political opportunism rather than genuine concern for the victims and their families and friends and desire to prevent similar catastrophes in the future. On the other hand, and most importantly, not one violent act has ever been successfully attributed, directly or indirectly, to the language or imagery used by anyone on the Right. This link, rather, is simply the fallacious and unproven allegation of those on the Left who then try passing it off as an objective, empirical truth to further their political agenda.

This agenda is rather straight forwards. These Leftists cannot progress their old, tired, failed and rejected political vision through intelligent, intellectual and rational means and thus desperately engage in cold, callous, calculating, cannibalistic, manipulative exploitation of tragedy, including the use of lies, fear mongering, blood libeling, well poisoning and character assassination, to foment and further irrational opposition against those holding contesting beliefs and ideologies. An opposition that, if we follow liberal logic, will only manufacture the same type of violent activity they claim to abhor, condemn and want to end. There are reports now that death threats against Palin has reached unprecedented levels. Perhaps we should blame liberals for their demonization, lies and quote mining of Palin, particularly after the Tucson shooting.

As most philosophy dictionaries and encyclopedias, like those published by Routledge and Stanford, clearly state, TRUE atheism is the belief or view that affirms there is no God or Gods. Labeling yourself an atheist but failing to make this claim means you are not an atheist. The passage of time has proven such an affirmation logically untenable. Whatever integrity and legitimacy atheism may have historically had has been utterly and completely destroyed; its best supporting arguments demolished by a revolution in theist thought beginning in about the latter half of the 20th century, led by intellectuals like Michael Behe, Francis Collins, William Lane Craig, William Dembski, John Lennox, Alister McGrath, Alvin Plantinga, John Polkinghorne, Hugh Ross and Richard Swinburne, to name a few. Rather than admit their belief indefensible and defeated, most atheists today, especially the “New Atheists,” play a deceitful and dishonest game of semantics, championing a revisionist atheism defined simply as the lack belief in God. Atheism thus turns from an intellectual position whose primary contention is the positive claim of God’s nonexistence to a trivial, nonintellectual psychological state whose adherents make no such claim but rather simply do not believe, hold no belief or lack belief in God, and which can tell us nothing about whether or not God exists. In fact, atheism under this new definition becomes neutral on this issue. Those holding to this revisionist atheism do not, in reality, simply lack belief in God; rather, they adorn this revisionist meaning believing it allows them to advance the traditional claims made by true atheism but without the need to intellectually and epistemically support them.

Sometimes, despite holding to this new definition of atheism, some atheists will still directly claim God does not exist; as done by the American Atheists, for example. Most times, however, this assertion is made indirectly, primarily by proclaiming God affirming arguments and beliefs, often the weakest ones at that, whether religious or not, and those who hold them, illogical, irrational and wrong, and/or similar terminology. Even philosophically neutral positions, like agnosticism, is not spared such scorn. However, such declarations can hold any validity only if God’s existence is entirely implausible or if God does not exist but are invalid if God’s existence is plausible or if God exists. Something can only be irrational, illogical or wrong to affirm true or possibly true if it is shown to be implausible or untrue in some way. This can be achieved in numerous ways and does not have to be, as many atheists contend, solely through direct, mathematical and/or scientific evidence; for example, it can be done utilizing the same type of logical inference a detective may use to prove his case. Atheists who insist that only the former type of evidence is acceptable have lost the game for they, if they are to be logically consistent, must prove such evidence to be the only acceptable evidence, using the same criteria they demand from others. At this point, these atheists’ standard of evidence proves to be self refuting.

In short, atheists claim God affirming beliefs are irrational, illogical and wrong; this is, if not equal to the direct claim that God does not exist, at least a strong argument of the implausibility of His existence. Either way, such a contention requires a reasoned, valid, intellectual defense if it is to be considered or accepted as a legitimate philosophical, intellectual positions beyond the individual or group level, to whom it is an already obvious truth regardless of evidence. Such a defense is something most atheists are uninterested in developing, much less providing. Instead, these atheists will usually just make their statements then resort to angry, vitriolic, hyperbolic attacks against those who do not hold those same sentiments, including agnostics. Such attacks, however, do not validate these atheists’ claims or beliefs; they can, in fact, be said to prove the opposite. If these atheists had indisputable evidence that they are completely, unquestionably right they would present it rather than resorting to such tactics. Tactics that can rightly be called pseudo intellectual and juvenile.

In answering the question of God’s existence, the burden of proof falls, as it does in other areas of intellectual discourse and academic study, on whomever makes the claim, be it positive or negative, and thus it falls evenly between those who directly or indirectly affirm He does or does not exist. Thus it falls evenly upon the theist and atheist. Those who hold to revisionist atheism, however, say they make no claims that God does not exist and thus are absolved of any intellectual and epistemic responsibility for logical, reasoned, valid arguments defending their (non) positions. This is just atheists engaging in empty posturing and rhetoric, duplicitous word games and mendacious attempts to redefine terms and debate rules to shift the burden of proof solely onto those who hold God exists enabling these atheists to make any claims they want without intellectually and epistemically supporting them. This is a dishonest, invalid and fallacious strategy, and makes atheists look cowardly, weak and defeated and atheism an untenable, empty position and worldview. Whether directly or indirectly stated, the atheist IS responsible for providing some type of reasoned, valid, logical argument for his positions, claims, arguments which, despite their word play, they do make.

When you do not have evidence in your defense, sometimes you may resort to any measures at your disposal to not admit you are wrong, especially when the alternative is a reality you sorely detest and want not to exist. They may not admit it, but atheists probably know God is not only logically possible, but that He does indeed exist. Something they do not want. As I stated, advancements in modern theist thought, and in philosophy and science generally have made acceptance of and belief in God’s reality more rational and logical than ever before. Even Dawkins has had to admit a strong argument can be made for a deist God. This is quite the concession from an atheist of his stature. Atheists may proclaim their rational, scientific and intellectual superiority but in reality their approach proves them the opposite.